Doc Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 Just now, LikeIGiveADarn said: My mistake then. No worries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: Do they or do they not have the right to appeal? A "right" to appeal does not mean that she had an underlying substantive "right." You are arguing for the sake of arguing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 1 minute ago, Peter said: That is like saying just because someone sues someone for $1 million that they have the right to $1 million until a jury says otherwise. If Person A sues Person B for a million dollars, then Person B absolutely has the right to that million until a jury says otherwise. So yes, it is exactly like saying that. We're "arguing semantics" because the semantics in this case are important. You're arguing "rights" from a legal context that is semantically very specific, but you don't seem to understand that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 1 hour ago, thebandit27 said: It's probably a lot more disgusting than you think Because i ain't shy My discharge manifold is my Avatar. Before some recent heat cycling : ) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, Peter said: A "right" to appeal does not mean that she had an underlying substantive "right." You are arguing for the sake of arguing. A right to appeal does mean her right as a tenant is not revoked until completion of the appeal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 35 minutes ago, co_springs_billsfan said: African or European? careful. be very careful when approaching this cave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HalftimeAdjustment Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 Any NFL discipline or action based in what we know so far would be grossly premature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 1 hour ago, billsfan2298 said: Anyone else feel like LeSean should be released/traded even if he has nothing to do with this? He just turned 30, and may be going into decline soon. It's clear that this team probably isn't going to the playoffs with McCarron/Allen/Peterman, and there would be significant cap savings for next year. I feel like he definitely won't be on the team for the 2019-2020 season, and trading him could help the team in its reconstructing and get a higher draft pick. No. We're going to the playoffs this year with double digit wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 2 hours ago, BuffaloSol said: When did I say she deserved it? I'm being sarcastic about someone proclaiming it on a message board like it needs to be said. We all know that she didn't deserve it but, some people think that questioning her motives and suggesting theories about the crime mean that those people think she deserved it. You can rationalize violence against women any way you want but your analogy rings hollow. You disgust me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 1 minute ago, HalftimeAdjustment said: Any NFL discipline or action based in what we know so far would be grossly premature. Like giving a player a 2-game suspension before you've seen the video that makes you decide it should be a full 16? Nah...Goodell would never do that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, DC Tom said: If Person A sues Person B for a million dollars, then Person B absolutely has the right to that million until a jury says otherwise. So yes, it is exactly like saying that. We're "arguing semantics" because the semantics in this case are important. You're arguing "rights" from a legal context that is semantically very specific, but you don't seem to understand that. You are wrong for two reasons: 1) In your rush to be disagreeable, you mixed up A and B in your example. 2) You are wrong. There is no right to a $1 million. The plaintiff has the burden of proving that right and persuading a jury (or the judge as the trier of fact). Just because you can afford the filing fee does not mean that you are able to deposit a $1 million in your bank account at the inception of any litigation. She has no underlying right to stay at that house. She does not own the house. She does not have a written lease. She was allowed to stay as a guest and was a tenant at will (the will of Shady). He said move out and has gone through the eviction process and the judge will find that her tenancy at will terminated when Shady said he no longer wanted her there. Just because she has delayed things does not mean she has underlying rights. Have fun. I am signing off. Edited July 13, 2018 by Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 16 minutes ago, Doc said: ...and who was facing eviction with nowhere else to live, much less means to support herself... (next up) From where are you getting this? Jewelry was on loan. hard to sift through it all ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoPar_v2 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 10 minutes ago, Peter said: That is like saying just because someone sues someone for $1 million that they have the right to $1 million until a jury says otherwise. The judge is going to find that she has NO right to stay there. You are arguing semantics just like DC Tom. It’s not semantics at all. You’re arguing that she currently does not have tenant’s rights that have been established by Georgia and common law. That is simply not true, no matter how you want to word it. What do think the law says counselor? That the moment McCoy decided “i want this person out of the house” she lost her rights that her previous occupancy established? Because if you really think that...wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Like giving a player a 2-game suspension before you've seen the video that makes you decide it should be a full 16? Nah...Goodell would never do that... There's no way Goodell didn't see that video before he "saw" the video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoPar_v2 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, Peter said: Have fun. I am signing off. Smart move Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 1 hour ago, slaphappy said: Wouldn't we feel foolish if this guy is real... https://twitter.com/MPetchenikWSB/status/1017469923780591616 So... does this mean the only accusations of domestic abuse are coming from Shady's ex-girlfriend's friend???? I'm thinking this looks more and more foolish. If Shady's innocent (looks more likely, to me), he needs to change his lifestyle because his party lifestyle just makes him too susceptible to false accusations that look believable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 5 minutes ago, Jauronimo said: You can rationalize violence against women any way you want but your analogy rings hollow. You disgust me. I second that I disgust you too ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 Just now, transplantbillsfan said: So... does this mean the only accusations of domestic abuse are coming from Shady's ex-girlfriend's friend???? I'm thinking this looks more and more foolish. If Shady's innocent (looks more likely, to me), he needs to change his lifestyle because his party lifestyle just makes him too susceptible to false accusations that look believable. Yup. And Shady's baby mama said he's never abused their son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 1 minute ago, JoPar_v2 said: It’s not semantics at all. You’re arguing that she currently does not have tenant’s rights that have been established by Georgia and common law. That is simply not true, no matter how you want to word it. What do think the law says counselor? That the moment McCoy decided “i want this person out of the house” she lost her rights that her previous occupancy established? Because if you really think that...wow. I quoted the Georgia statutes. You can read (I hope). She was a tenant at will - at the will of Shady. Georgia law gives her 60 days to move out. The tenancy at will ended. She has overstayed the 60 days. How much would you like to bet that the judge finds that she has to move out or that she moves out before the hearing once she figures out that she cannot delay it any longer? Do you really think that the judge is going to find that she has the right to stay there? All she is doing is delaying the inevitable ruling against her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 1 minute ago, Peter said: I quoted the Georgia statutes. You can read (I hope). She was a tenant at will - at the will of Shady. Georgia law gives her 60 days to move out. The tenancy at will ended. She has overstayed the 60 days. How much would you like to bet that the judge finds that she has to move out or that she moves out before the hearing once she figures out that she cannot delay it any longer? Do you really think that the judge is going to find that she has the right to stay there? All she is doing is delaying the inevitable ruling against her. is there a chance you are British ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, JoPar_v2 said: Smart move I really hope that you are not an attorney. You are bound to have Rule 11 (or the state equivalent) sanctions awarded against you because you think that delay tactics are somehow the same as an underlying right. Oh brother. Just now, 3rdand12 said: is there a chance you are British ? No. And it is not coming home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 8 minutes ago, 3rdand12 said: Jewelry was on loan. hard to sift through it all ! Yes it was on loan but it has not been recovered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 Just now, Peter said: I really hope that you are not an attorney. You are bound to have Rule 11 (or the state equivalent) sanctions awarded against you because you think that delay tactics are somehow the same as an underlying right. Oh brother. No. And it is not coming home. : ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x-BillzeBubba Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, Peter said: How much would you like to bet that the judge finds that she has to move out or that she moves out before the hearing once she figures out that she cannot delay it any longer? Do you really think that the judge is going to find that she has the right to stay there? All she is doing is delaying the inevitable ruling against her. I read she already moved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 Just now, Doc said: Yes it was on loan but it has not been recovered. correct. I see that has been clarified. So why would Shady need to be the one to return it ? He could claim it stolen or make the Jewelers aware and allow them to pursue their property ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 18 minutes ago, DC Tom said: If Person A sues Person B for a million dollars, then Person B absolutely has the right to that million until a jury says otherwise. So yes, it is exactly like saying that. We're "arguing semantics" because the semantics in this case are important. You're arguing "rights" from a legal context that is semantically very specific, but you don't seem to understand that. Actually they only have the right to the million if the jury says so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoPar_v2 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 1 minute ago, Peter said: I quoted the Georgia statutes. You can read (I hope). She was a tenant at will - at the will of Shady. Georgia law gives her 60 days to move out. The tenancy at will ended. She has overstayed the 60 days. How much would you like to bet that the judge finds that she has to move out or that she moves out before the hearing once she figures out that she cannot delay it any longer? Do you really think that the judge is going to find that she has the right to stay there? All she is doing is delaying the inevitable ruling against her. Just because the future outcome is obvious does not mean she prematurely loses her tenant’s rights. She had 60 day notice to vacate...or eviction proceedings will be brought against her. You left out that second part. The notice does not state “you have 60 days to vacate...or the clock will strike and the bells will ring and poof you are no longer a tenant” as you seem to believe. due process and all that counselor. Maybe look that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, x-BillzeBubba said: I read she already moved any links would be helpful with updates. It's offseason at it's finest ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, x-BillzeBubba said: I read she already moved She's fighting eviction. So that seems unlikely with the next hearing on August 14th. Edited July 13, 2018 by 26CornerBlitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoPar_v2 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, Peter said: I really hope that you are not an attorney. You are bound to have Rule 11 (or the state equivalent) sanctions awarded against you because you think that delay tactics are somehow the same as an underlying right. Weird because I specifically said the procedural delay was a tactic, NOT a right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: Actually they only have the right to the million if the jury says so. Exactly. 1 minute ago, JoPar_v2 said: Weird because I specifically said the procedural delay was a tactic, NOT a right. Then why are you picking a fight with me? Just to be disagreeable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 Just now, Peter said: Exactly. Unless the defendant doesn't respond, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 7 minutes ago, x-BillzeBubba said: I read she already moved Wait a minute! There are some here who have spent hours arguing that she had the right to live there. I guess she even realized that she had to move out. 1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said: Unless the defendant doesn't respond, correct? Correct. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said: Unless the defendant doesn't respond, correct? Is this a rental owned by him or a place described as his residence ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoPar_v2 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 1 minute ago, Peter said: Exactly. Then why are you picking a fight with me? Just to be disagreeable? One more time with gusto - her rights as a tenant remain until the eviction is ordered by a judge. Delaying that hearing is a tactic (she doesn’t have a “right” to infinite delays) or at best, a matter of circumstance. You’re conflating the two, not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 7 minutes ago, JoPar_v2 said: Just because the future outcome is obvious does not mean she prematurely loses her tenant’s rights. She had 60 day notice to vacate...or eviction proceedings will be brought against her. You left out that second part. The notice does not state “you have 60 days to vacate...or the clock will strike and the bells will ring and poof you are no longer a tenant” as you seem to believe. due process and all that counselor. Maybe look that up. Are you trying to argue that she has 60 days to live there after the judge rules against her (if she has not already moved out)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, 3rdand12 said: correct. I see that has been clarified. So why would Shady need to be the one to return it ? He could claim it stolen or make the Jewelers aware and allow them to pursue their property ? It would look just as suspicious if they're trying to get it back and suddenly it gets stolen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoPar_v2 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 Just now, 3rdand12 said: Is this a rental owned by him or a place described as his residence ? The place was jointly occupied by the two; McCoy is the sole owner (specifically a trust owns it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 1 minute ago, JoPar_v2 said: One more time with gusto - her rights as a tenant remain until the eviction is ordered by a judge. Delaying that hearing is a tactic (she doesn’t have a “right” to infinite delays) or at best, a matter of circumstance. You’re conflating the two, not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 1 minute ago, 3rdand12 said: Is this a rental owned by him or a place described as his residence ? Don't know. Always wondered why wealthy people would live in a place like that. He could essentially keep a place anywhere in the country he wished---and chooses that craptacular cut-de-sac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts